A Platform to Develop and Apply Digital Methods for Empirical Bioethics Research: Mixed Methods Design and Development Study
Bibliographic record
Abstract
BACKGROUND: The rise of digital methods and computational tools has opened up the possibility of collecting and analyzing data from novel sources, such as discussions on social media. At the same time, these methods and tools introduce a dependence on technology, often resulting in a need for technical skills and expertise. Researchers from various disciplines engage in empirical bioethics research, and software development and similar skills are not usually part of their background. Therefore, researchers often depend on technical experts to develop and apply digital methods, which can create a bottleneck and hinder the broad use of digital methods in empirical bioethics research. OBJECTIVE: This study aimed to develop a research platform that would offer researchers the means to better leverage implemented digital methods, and that would simplify the process of developing new methods. METHODS: This study used a mixed methods approach to design and develop a research platform prototype. I combined established methods from user-centered design, rapid prototyping, and agile software development to iteratively develop the platform prototype. In collaboration with two other researchers, I tested and extended the platform prototype in situ by carrying out a study using the prototype. RESULTS: The resulting research platform prototype provides three digital methods, which are composed of functional components. This modular concept allows researchers to use existing methods for their own experiments and combine implemented components into new methods. CONCLUSIONS: The platform prototype illustrates the potential of the modular concept and empowers researchers without advanced technical skills to carry out experiments using digital methods and develop new methods. However, more work is needed to bring the prototype to a production-ready state.
Fetched live from OpenAlex and de-inverted. Abstracts are not stored in this database: the inverted indexes are 8.6 GB of the frame’s 9.3 GB of text, and the host has 13 GB free.
How this classification was reachedexpand
Full frame machine prediction
Teacher imitationNot calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. The Gemma side is a direct model label for every work in the frame, read from the title-only record. The Codex side is a classifier learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and calibrated to design-weighted sample rates; fields without enough sample support carry no Codex call. Candidate is the union of the two sides; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels.
Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.232 | 0.187 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.002 | 0.002 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.003 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.006 | 0.003 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.004 | 0.007 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.008 | 0.007 |
| Open science | 0.005 | 0.013 |
| Research integrity | 0.004 | 0.004 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.009 | 0.002 |
Machine scores (provisional)
The two teacher heads of the student model, read on this work. A score orders the frame for review; it never asserts a category, and the validation status ships verbatim with every row.
Baseline scores from an immature model (maturity gate not passed, 7 training rounds). Scores rank; they never assert a category.
score_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from itClassification
machine, unvalidatedMachine predicted; the direct Gemma label and the distilled Codex classifier agree on what is shown here.
How this classification was reached, model by model and score by score, is at the end of the page under "How this classification was reached".